Here’s our take on the resignation of Alberto Gonzales:

Ok, so he’s resigning. They’re going to replace him with someone awful.

It’s a sad reality that the problems we face aren’t based on personalities in government, but rather, on the systemic abuse of power by politicians.

Gonzales is gone. Nothing is going to change.

Why? Because the new A.G. will be the same…or worse. Just like he ended up worse than Ashcroft.

What we need is not just a simple change of faces in D.C., but instead, a change of policy; a return to the principles of the Constitution, and a return to the principles of limited government as espoused by the 10th Amendment.

DIGG THIS

There’s been quite an uproar over recent comments on Habeas Corpus by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported:

“The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas,” Gonzales told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17.

Gonzales acknowledged that the Constitution declares “habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless … in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” But he insisted that “there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”

Specter was incredulous, asking how the Constitution could bar the suspension of a right that didn’t exist — a right, he noted, that was first recognized in medieval England as a shield against the king’s power to dispatch troublesome subjects to royal dungeons.

Although you might wonder why this issue qualifies as a concern of the Tenth Amendment, it’s these statements by both Gonzales and Specter that warrant special attention. Their position, if formally adopted by the government, would change the entire structure and basis of the Constitution; from one which created a government of specifically limited powers to one that gives the government all powers not prohibited.

First, more from the Chronicle:

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said this week that Gonzales stood by his remarks but was asserting only that the text of the Constitution does not guarantee habeas corpus.

Aboslutely Correct!

The Constitution, contrary to what many people believe, does not give people rights to free speech, trial by jury, to be armed, or even habeas corpus. In fact, the Constitution does not give people any rights, whatsoever!

Instead of giving us rights, the Constitution simply acknowledges that our rights are natural and inherent, and seeks to prevent that enemy of the ages which has always sought to take away our rights: The Government.

Simply put, the Constitution is a limit on government power. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The founders knew what was so obvious from history, and what remains true today – that the greatest threats to our liberty always comes from our own government.

As the 10th Amendment states so clearly, if the Constitution doesn’t give a power to the federal government, it can’t do it. Period.

Much of what the federal government engages in on a day-to-day basis is in a direct violation of the Tenth Amendment. The statements by Gonzales, Specter, and Roehrkasse are all examples of how the feds have destroyed not only the Tenth Amendment, but the meaning and intent of the Constitution as a whole.

No, Mr. Gonzales, the Constitution does NOT say that every individual is guaranteed the right of habeas corpus! No, Mr. Specter, rights DO exist even if they’re not listed in the Constitution. No, Mr. Roehrkasse, the text of the Constitution does NOT guarantee habeas corpus – the text of the Constitution guarantees that YOU and your accomplices in the federal government cannot take that right away!

What the feds can do in regards to habeas corpus was written quite plainly in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution,

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Nowhere else is Habeas Corpus even mentioned. Thus, since the federal government was not given the power to suspend habeas in any other situation, it can’t do it.

The Tenth Amendment has been repeatedly ignored and directly violated almost continuously since FDR and the New Deal showed it utter disregard in the Great Depression. When the Federal government takes on functions not specifically given to it in the Constitution, in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment, it’s only a matter of time before it starts taking away other rights.

Without a strict adherence to the Tenth Amendment, it’s only a matter of time before the government starts spying on us, opening our mail, creating “free speech zones”, telling us we can’t have guns, and more. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

It’s high-time for “We The People” to start demanding that the Feds start obeying this fundamental law. We are getting alarmingly close to having no rights at all – other than what the government, in its divine mercy, decides to grant us. This landslide must be stopped quickly, and the 10th Amendment is the rule to follow, or we’ll soon find ourselves in an overt dictatorship.

The San Francisco Chronicle Reports:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Wednesday warned federal judges not to meddle in cases involving national security, following a string of judicial rebukes of the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism initiatives.

In a speech to the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, Gonzales said federal judges are not “equipped to make decisions about” actions the president takes in the name of preserving national security.

Let’s be clear here. It is absolutely the role - the mandate - of the judicial branch to make decisions on whether or not the actions of the president (the whole government for that matter) fall within the powers allowed by the Constitution.

But wait, there’s more:

Gonzales added that the judiciary should show deference to the executive branch when national security is involved, because, unlike the Bush administration, judges “don’t have embassies around the world gathering up information.”

Whether or not this is now “official policy” is not the issue. The fact remains that a high-ranking executive branch official gave a “direction” to the judicial branch to stop looking at the constitutionality of the actions of the executive. Sounds pretty strange, doesn’t it?

The federal government cannot legally wield any power that is not specifically granted by the Constitution. According to the Tenth Amendment, powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved “to the states respectively or to the people.”

Nowhere in the Constitution is there a power to allow the executive to direct the judiciary in any way. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a power for the judiciary to decline to ajudicate actions by the government because of a “direction” or “recommendation” by the Attorney General.

Since these powers are not delegated to the federal government, then they must be among those powers reserved “to the states respectively or to the people.” Simply put, the executive branch is not constitutionally empowered to “meddle” in the affiars of the Judiciary, whatsover.

The courts are the last line of defense that “we the people” have to protect ourselves from abuses by the legislative and executive branches. If judges collude with either of the other two branches of government, then the separation of powers, and thus, all hopes for individual liberty, will collapse.

If this becomes policy of the executive, or practice of the judiciary, there will be an absolute need for us to call for the resignation or impeachment of judges who refuse to carry out their duty.